muppetfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:The Junk Lady
Consumerism Metaphor "Besides being a represention Sarah's own self-absorption, The Junk Lady is a statement on consumerism as a whole and the clouding of one's ambitions with superfluous worldly possessions. In her denial of the items given to her by the Junk Lady, Sarah saves herself from becoming a slave to those same items." This was originally posted in the article but was asked to be taken out due to a lack of definite evidence supporting the metaphor. Can someone with some further insight confirm or refute this claim? --Cantus Rock 03:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC) :I think Sarah's conflict with the Junk Lady is about rejecting the trappings of childhood. Labyrinth is about Sarah growing up and becoming a mature young woman. The Junk Lady tries to distract Sarah by bringing her into her childhood bedroom, and piling all of her old toys and games onto her shoulders. To escape, Sarah has to push all of that aside, and stay focused on a mature goal -- helping her baby brother. -- Danny (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC) ::I think that's part of it, but not the whole ball of wax. The Junk People themselves weren't confined to childishness; they were bound by their perpetual consumption, forever collecting literal junk to no plausable end. In Sarah's case, her consuming element was based on childish things, but in the conclusion we see that she can balance both what she wants (ie. her childish interests, possessions, etc. -- her generally immature nature) and what she needs (to put that side into perspective when it comes to the bigger picture); the balance between moderation and gluttony. "This is what you were looking for" = "whatever your problem is, this product will fix it." And if Sarah the character is altered, the items the Junk Lady gives to her would also be altered (ie. marketing). The Junk People stack their backs high with useless trinkets and goods, and in the end all the have is their mountain of trinkets and goods. Consumed by consumption, as Sarah would have been if she had given into her immaturity and allowed herself to be overtaken by the possessions (which is why your point and mine are connected; immaturity by character or by sheer age alone and consumerism, are closely linked). ::I could be totally wrong, but the connections seem so defined to me, and of course given Jim's other, more overt statements on the type of subject (via Time Piece and, my favorite, The Cube), it seems like a logical metaphor, incorporating my theory and yours Danny. I'm hoping for some info from a book or something though; I was upset that Inside the Labyrinth jumps directly from the ball into the Goblin City, skipping the Junk Lady totally. I really love the character. --Cantus Rock 11:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC) :::That's interesting; I think that's a really good analysis. This conversation brings up a question of how/whether to include interpretations in article pages. On Lostpedia, they have a section on some articles called "Theory", where people can post theories and interpretations. If we wanted, we could have a similar section on appropriate pages -- maybe "Possible Interpretations", or something like that. :::I don't know exactly how that would work -- we wouldn't want to encourage the Frackle kids to post their crazy conspiracy theories or fan fiction ideas. But if we could keep the Theory/Interpretation sections on the more scholarly level, I think it could be a huge benefit to the wiki. -- Danny (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC) ::::I like this discussion. Yeah, I was leery about the original statement since a) it's one interpretaton (I'll do some digging but I'm fairly sure at least one or two film reviews at the time used the childhood transition theory, especially since the whole film is in many ways about rites of passage) and b) it seemed to imply that that was an official explanation given by the film's creators. But a seperate "Theory" section, if handled well and with limits, could be wonderful. Maybe something like the section in Marvin Suggs (currently labeled "Trivia") which discusses similar comedy skits and potential influences, based on clear parallels, but doesn't try to claim authoritatively that any one was the *specific* inspiration. To keep away the comspiracy theory stuff, maybe a policy page, similar to the Transcript Format, would be helpful. We're not Wikipedia, and some of our best pages have come from what they would call "original research" (contacting folks who worked on the show, non-published scripts and archives, etc.), but I'm also concerned about avoiding fanfiction stuff and definitive claims, or opening this up to those who want sections on why they think Elmo is evil. Basic requirements might be using printed, scholarly quotes/reviews as a starting point when possible, and when not, putting the interpretation on the talk page first, as was done here, citing specific examples from the film to support the theory (which Matt's done well), and not just "I think Sarah is clearly in love with Jareth because Jareth looks great in tight pants!" babbling. Just some early thoughts, tossing the rubber duckie around to see if it quacks. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)